League of Legends Wiki talk:Vandalism Reports
Format Oh god the bright green is making my eyes bleed. In all seriousness it is a little difficult to read the text in the actual vandal report. perhaps a darker colour. 19:20, April 18, 2011 (UTC) * Agreed. Vyrolan 21:44, April 18, 2011 (UTC) **Text, or links? Because the text is black, and I could make the links darker as well. It isn't light green, either... :P 22:20, April 18, 2011 (UTC) *** I have to agree here. Check pic. The light green background looks a bit out of place, but mostly links are unreadable. -- 23:02, April 18, 2011 (UTC) **** I don't know if you guys like it however I went through and redid the color scheme of the IP-warned, IP-blocked, and IP-vandal pages to much... softer colors, they aren't permanent but I think they look a lot less harsh to the eyes. NeonSpotlight 20:27, April 19, 2011 (UTC) - Red outline indicating problem - Yellow indicating a warning - Green indicating it was resolved. - White to represent purity :The colours are nicer but the links are still a little tough to read. You have black normal text and then light blue links. You need to use dark on light or light on dark but not mix them. The pink is not too bad, if you made it a bit darker i think you would be able to read everything. -- 21:25, April 19, 2011 (UTC) :: I think it would be much better to keep the dark normal background but use different colored borders. You could do a 2-3 pixel border in the colors you're proposing and it would work great. The border would very clearly show the status but not be so overpowering on the page. Vyrolan 21:33, April 19, 2011 (UTC) ::: Ok, redid it, I kind of like it like this. NeonSpotlight 00:10, April 20, 2011 (UTC) ::::Much better than what I had, thanks :D 00:44, April 20, 2011 (UTC) ::::I'm not sure about the white one... what is purity supposed to mean? 00:52, April 20, 2011 (UTC) ::::: That template is IP-good or that it was a false report, purity meaning that the supposed vandal was not really a vandal. NeonSpotlight 00:56, April 20, 2011 (UTC) :::::: Looks great. -- 02:00, April 20, 2011 (UTC) A question Should we add to the Vandalism Reports page whenever we block someone? I didn't think we did but I've noticed Vyro and Exiton have done this. NeonSpotlight 19:49, April 28, 2011 (UTC) : hmm good question. I have been treating it as a place to report all vandalism. Is it only supposed to be a place where editors report vandalism to mods who then take action. No one gave me a manual when i took this job. 20:20, April 28, 2011 (UTC) :This page is for peeplz who dun have the banhammer 20:21, April 28, 2011 (UTC) ::Yea, I don't see a need to do that. That's why they invented the block log :) 23:16, April 28, 2011 (UTC) Since there is a section for questions about the reports, what is the point of the yellow box? I havn't seen one be used and I don't know what the meaning of it is. 04:30, May 11, 2011 (UTC) :The vandal was warned NeonSpotlight 04:41, May 11, 2011 (UTC) I can read what the description says but I am asking for a time/situation in when the yellow box would be used. And what does it mean by warn...talk pages? Also, if that is the case, then there are people that don't really vandalized that should've been warned. 04:49, May 11, 2011 (UTC) :Still waiting for a non-sarcastic response on this. 06:43, May 13, 2011 (UTC) ::I will not be forgotten! 03:25, May 17, 2011 (UTC) Somethings not working. I guess i don't really have to fill out these things but i wanted to see how it works. I see the text "click here and fill in the required fields." Well when i click here is gives me a blank page. I think it's supposed to pre-load a template the person is then supposed to fill in but it's not doing that for me. -- 01:12, April 29, 2011 (UTC) :Should now, thanks for pointing that out. 01:48, April 29, 2011 (UTC) ::Works now, thanks. 04:33, April 29, 2011 (UTC) Hmm, tried to report a vandal too, but it doesn't shows up on the page :/. Dunno if I did something wrong.. -- 20:50, April 29, 2011 (UTC) :Fixed it. Reports were going on the wrong page (I really really hate capitalized letters.. :P). -- 20:26, April 30, 2011 (UTC) Reporter Signatures I don't see the point in keeping it, especially when the reporter's signature is highlighted and ridiculous looking. Thoughs? NeonSpotlight 04:21, May 11, 2011 (UTC) Your opinion about other user's signatures has nothing to do with the reports. I just realized that you do the same to your talk page, which by the way, isn't your talk page. I also fid it a bit weird that you change only mine and not other user's including highlighted ones like Aj's. 04:24, May 11, 2011 (UTC) AJ's was green, like it should be, he wasn't trying to hide his color with highlights or other ridiculous things, I changed D3's when he had that annoyingly long signature with the picture so it isn't just you. NeonSpotlight 04:27, May 11, 2011 (UTC) Well whatever your annoyance/opinion is, I want to hear more about the subject from a Bureaucrat, as they know what is best out of anybody of the wiki. 04:28, May 11, 2011 (UTC) :Waiting for response on this. 06:44, May 13, 2011 (UTC) :: Someone needs to check the reports for this and needs to answer this question ^^ 03:26, May 17, 2011 (UTC) Problems with Admin Comments and Revisions I think that the admins should explain their revisions and comments rather than just assuming they know it all. Any non-sarcastic thoughts? 04:34, May 17, 2011 (UTC) There should be no "Purity Box". Every suspected vandal should be warned about that other users are worried about their edits and to just be careful. 05:45, May 17, 2011 (UTC) :Depend on the gravity of the vandalization. I'm not going to warn an user that added "asdfg" on a page as his only contribution, I'm just going to revert that. You also reported users that didn't do anything even remotely related to vandalism (commenting with "CAWCAWCAW" or adding a true information on an article). You should stop being so obsessed with your "vandals caught" count. For more informations, see here, especially the first few paragraphs. -- 10:17, May 17, 2011 (UTC) ::@Zel: I love how you assume that that is the reason that I report vandals and do it for no reason. I report vandals to protect the wiki from harm they can cause to it. I could care less about "total vandals caught", that is for documentation and reference, which by the way isn't your problem and you shouldn't involve yourself in. I reported the vandal withy the "CAWCAWCAWCAWCAW" comments because one time, a vandal messed up the activity page somehow and made a glitch, and he was blocked for months, so I thought this was the same situation. Also, reporting a vandal doesnt mean that they are vandals, but that watching their contribs a little more than usual should be taken into consideration. And about the editor on Eve, I didn't even know that nexus obelisks dont grant magical sight, the obelisks are supposed to be able to destroy everything. I am going to be testing that out later. Also, for your sake, don't assume that your thoughts are always right. 00:44, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::First you start a "vandals caught" count, then report contributors at first sight, without even checking if what they say is true/false, harmful for the wiki, etc (link above explains it much better). It's not that hard to make 1+1 here. Also, reporting a vandal here should be the last step, as in you should already have proofs that who you are reporting is effectively trying to vandalize. -- 08:06, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :But what if I actually do know it all? Jokes, but honestly, please give me some sort of indication of the problem here. You haven't really clearly stated what is wrong and how it should be fixed. 13:14, May 17, 2011 (UTC) ::@Aj, well Zel just demonstrated what I meant. And I am saying that if an admin reverts a report, they should at least explain why rather than just saying "Sigh" and things like that. I already resolved that problem with Neon. 00:44, May 18, 2011 (UTC) :::I have no idea what you just demonstrated. -- 08:06, May 18, 2011 (UTC) Vandal Reports Link We need to add the link to the vandalism reports somewhere as users might not be able to find it. 04:14, May 20, 2011 (UTC) Ok a user seemed to be vandalizing, but he said he was told to by Demise101, right after that Demise reported him, not sure if this is purposely played out or what. 23:42, June 7, 2011 (UTC) :We just wait and see how this plays out, imo. NeonSpotlight 23:50, June 7, 2011 (UTC) ::Ok. It is just ironic to me. 23:51, June 7, 2011 (UTC) Blue Boxes Should we have a blue box for reporting certain comments on certain pages? 23:47, June 15, 2011 (UTC) :I mean instead of leaving a message on someone's talk page, we should report where the page has bad comments, and a mod+ can change the template to "clean" and the box can be blue meaning the bad comments were removed from the page (clean). 00:38, June 16, 2011 (UTC) ::Too many comments for something like this to be effective, imo, I still support a forum page in the issues section. 00:43, June 16, 2011 (UTC) :::Too many comments as in too many reports? Because I was saying to report a page filled with those comments if there is about 10-15+ bad comments. If it is like 1-5 then it isn't worth reporting. 00:45, June 16, 2011 (UTC) ::::Every page has 10-15+ bad comments, besides Akali since I cleaned her out thoroughly... 00:47, June 16, 2011 (UTC)